4 ms·

You must live in one of the few places in the US where high-speed internet is available through multiple providers. That is definitely not the norm. Most peop

by knowuh 8y ago

You must live in one of the few places in the US where high-speed internet is available through multiple providers. That is definitely not the norm. Most people won't be able to simply switch to the least nasty provider.

dsabanin 8y ago
But that's my point, it will give a smaller-sized competition more chances to differentiate, since users might start looking for something better.
- falcolas 8y ago
  What smaller competition will be capable of laying copper or fiber to its constituents? Even cities are, in many cases, rendered incapable of providing competition. And, for the record, wireless is not a viable competition for copper, let alone fiber. The available bandwidth by the most cutting-edge offerings is too low and latency is too high.
  - xj9 8y ago
    the hypothetical here is that Comca$t is going to artificially throttle Netflix and give you mandatory free (paid) access to their own streaming platform. all a WISP has to do to compete is offer more bandwidth than the throttle allows with no bandwidth shaping at a competitive price.
    - falcolas 8y ago
      If all that the internet was was streaming video, sure. It's not, though. The WISP also has to be resilient against Comcast removing the cap at a lower price (at least until the WISP folds). And against being bought out by Comcast. And against Comcast's lawyers and lobbyists (the wireless spectrum being a government controlled and finite resource).
      - xj9 8y ago
        you make it sound like competing with comcast is impossible. it might be difficult, yes, but if you have less-than-shit policies in your state/muni lots of options tend to pop up. i live in Utah, and i have several ISP options pretty much anywhere along the Wasatch Front, including fiber and wireless. i can't speak for anywhere else, but its not like its impossible.
- staplers 8y ago
  On what infrastructure? Pigeon carriers?
  - dsabanin 8y ago
    They could first start small – municipalities, LANs, HOA-based WANs, consolidating slowly. It's like you're saying that no ISP progress will ever be made if someone is not using existing AT&T networks.
- ethbro 8y ago
  It's infeasible when there's enough political money from the nationwide ISPs to make installing a new network prohibitively expensive. Comcast, ATT, and Spectrum's ceiling of profit is the difference between the cost of delivering services and the potential cost of installing a competitive network. And it's far easier to increase the latter than innovate and decrease the former.
ethbro 8y ago
If the FCC really wanted to promote competition instead of profits, they could mandate nationwide access to utility poles & shared conduit. As well as making exclusive franchise agreements illegal.
- Miredly 8y ago
  I still don't really understand how exclusive franchise agreements /aren't/ illegal, given antitrust laws.
  - vertexFarm 8y ago
    Through insane amounts of regulatory capture. You could hardly hope to get government under greater private control with an overwhelming military coup. We've gone far beyond reducing regulation to ensure that innovation is possible--we've restructured regulation to ensure that doing business is practical only for the major industry players who now write our legislation.
- adventured 8y ago
  Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal for eg cable. They have been illegal for a quarter of a century. You'll find that nearly all examples commonly presented of the lack of competition, are not due to market lock-out, it's due to the high cost and time required to gain approval to build in a given town or city. The combined cost, with pre-existing competition entrenched, is a very large disincentive. Google Fiber didn't grind to a halt on their build-out because they couldn't legally access markets, it's because it's painfully expensive and very slow. There are three solutions to the problem: new technology that bypasses (low earth orbit satellite, wireless); lower the total cost to enter markets and compete; mandate shared access to existing infrastructure (and ideally simultaneously lower the other market entry costs).
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Normally when infrastructure is expensive to deploy and wasteful to duplicate like this we turn it into a utility (Water, Electric, Sewer, Roads, Telephone, etc...). We don't do that for Internet because...
bradleybuda 8y ago
More than half of US households have multiple wired broadband providers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi... This does not include wireless broadband options. Could the competitive situation be better? Absolutely. But it is, in fact, the "norm" to have a choice.
- cmurf 8y ago
  A scant majority is not "the norm" - you're using a term that has no statistical meaning. A duopoly labeled as choice is specious.
- chaostheory 8y ago
  The study limited to 100 MBPS. It should have included more tiers like 200, 300, 500, and 1000 to provide a better picture. Once you go past 100 MBPS, there tends to be only one widely available choice per region. This choice is either Comcast or Verizon.
- dpark 8y ago
  That means nearly half have a single (or no) option. Further, for many who have two choices, the decision is between not-actually-very-Fast DSL or a single cable provider. In Mountain View I had only shitty DSL or shitty cable. Both sucked and cable was very expensive. (This may be different now. My experience was 8 or so years ago.) I happen to be lucky to have actual high speed Comcast now, with an option for FTTH from Centurylink, plus DSL. Most people’s options are not so good.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    >for many who have two choices, the decision is between not-actually-very-Fast DSL or a single cable provider Very true. In one city where I have a house, the choice is 4 megabit DSL for $60/month, or 300 megabit cable for $101. Both are considered "broadband" by the FCC because the DSL is "up to" 8 megabits. But they are not equivalent services. There's also a wireless ISP, but it's $95/month for 5 megabits.
qaq 8y ago
Yep after moving from MI to NoVA the contrast is night and day my house has both Verizon FIOS and Comcast 2 Gigabit options available and a bunch of smaller providers.
dsabanin 8y ago
That's the status quo with net neutrality, it's repeal may or may not have an effect on it. It's going to be interesting to watch.

by knowuh 8y ago

dsabanin 8y ago

But that's my point, it will give a smaller-sized competition more chances to differentiate, since users might start looking for something better.

falcolas 8y ago
What smaller competition will be capable of laying copper or fiber to its constituents? Even cities are, in many cases, rendered incapable of providing competition. And, for the record, wireless is not a viable competition for copper, let alone fiber. The available bandwidth by the most cutting-edge offerings is too low and latency is too high.
- xj9 8y ago
  the hypothetical here is that Comca$t is going to artificially throttle Netflix and give you mandatory free (paid) access to their own streaming platform. all a WISP has to do to compete is offer more bandwidth than the throttle allows with no bandwidth shaping at a competitive price.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    If all that the internet was was streaming video, sure. It's not, though. The WISP also has to be resilient against Comcast removing the cap at a lower price (at least until the WISP folds). And against being bought out by Comcast. And against Comcast's lawyers and lobbyists (the wireless spectrum being a government controlled and finite resource).
    - xj9 8y ago
      you make it sound like competing with comcast is impossible. it might be difficult, yes, but if you have less-than-shit policies in your state/muni lots of options tend to pop up. i live in Utah, and i have several ISP options pretty much anywhere along the Wasatch Front, including fiber and wireless. i can't speak for anywhere else, but its not like its impossible.
staplers 8y ago
On what infrastructure? Pigeon carriers?
- dsabanin 8y ago
  They could first start small – municipalities, LANs, HOA-based WANs, consolidating slowly. It's like you're saying that no ISP progress will ever be made if someone is not using existing AT&T networks.
ethbro 8y ago
It's infeasible when there's enough political money from the nationwide ISPs to make installing a new network prohibitively expensive. Comcast, ATT, and Spectrum's ceiling of profit is the difference between the cost of delivering services and the potential cost of installing a competitive network. And it's far easier to increase the latter than innovate and decrease the former.

ethbro 8y ago

If the FCC really wanted to promote competition instead of profits, they could mandate nationwide access to utility poles & shared conduit. As well as making exclusive franchise agreements illegal.

Miredly 8y ago
I still don't really understand how exclusive franchise agreements /aren't/ illegal, given antitrust laws.
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  Through insane amounts of regulatory capture. You could hardly hope to get government under greater private control with an overwhelming military coup. We've gone far beyond reducing regulation to ensure that innovation is possible--we've restructured regulation to ensure that doing business is practical only for the major industry players who now write our legislation.
adventured 8y ago
Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal for eg cable. They have been illegal for a quarter of a century. You'll find that nearly all examples commonly presented of the lack of competition, are not due to market lock-out, it's due to the high cost and time required to gain approval to build in a given town or city. The combined cost, with pre-existing competition entrenched, is a very large disincentive. Google Fiber didn't grind to a halt on their build-out because they couldn't legally access markets, it's because it's painfully expensive and very slow. There are three solutions to the problem: new technology that bypasses (low earth orbit satellite, wireless); lower the total cost to enter markets and compete; mandate shared access to existing infrastructure (and ideally simultaneously lower the other market entry costs).
- jandrese 8y ago
  Normally when infrastructure is expensive to deploy and wasteful to duplicate like this we turn it into a utility (Water, Electric, Sewer, Roads, Telephone, etc...). We don't do that for Internet because...

bradleybuda 8y ago

More than half of US households have multiple wired broadband providers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi... This does not include wireless broadband options. Could the competitive situation be better? Absolutely. But it is, in fact, the "norm" to have a choice.

cmurf 8y ago
A scant majority is not "the norm" - you're using a term that has no statistical meaning. A duopoly labeled as choice is specious.
chaostheory 8y ago
The study limited to 100 MBPS. It should have included more tiers like 200, 300, 500, and 1000 to provide a better picture. Once you go past 100 MBPS, there tends to be only one widely available choice per region. This choice is either Comcast or Verizon.
dpark 8y ago
That means nearly half have a single (or no) option. Further, for many who have two choices, the decision is between not-actually-very-Fast DSL or a single cable provider. In Mountain View I had only shitty DSL or shitty cable. Both sucked and cable was very expensive. (This may be different now. My experience was 8 or so years ago.) I happen to be lucky to have actual high speed Comcast now, with an option for FTTH from Centurylink, plus DSL. Most people’s options are not so good.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  >for many who have two choices, the decision is between not-actually-very-Fast DSL or a single cable provider Very true. In one city where I have a house, the choice is 4 megabit DSL for $60/month, or 300 megabit cable for $101. Both are considered "broadband" by the FCC because the DSL is "up to" 8 megabits. But they are not equivalent services. There's also a wireless ISP, but it's $95/month for 5 megabits.

qaq 8y ago

Yep after moving from MI to NoVA the contrast is night and day my house has both Verizon FIOS and Comcast 2 Gigabit options available and a bunch of smaller providers.

dsabanin 8y ago

That's the status quo with net neutrality, it's repeal may or may not have an effect on it. It's going to be interesting to watch.